# Christine RUSH v. SCOTT SPECIALTY GASES, INC., Appellant

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · July 16, 1997 · 113 F.3d 476

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490280

## Case

- **Full name:** 74 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 1745, 71 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,825 Christine Rush v. Scott Specialty Gases, Inc.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** July 16, 1997
- **Citations:** 113 F.3d 476; 1997 WL 249175
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Greenberg, Alito, Seitz, Sloviter, Becker, Stapleton, Mansmann, Scirica, Cowen, Nygaard, Roth, Lewis, McKee
- **Cited by:** 132 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Abrogated on other grounds by Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157 (2013).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490280

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the plaintiff’s “failure to promote and train claim addresse[d] discrete instances of alleged discrimination that [we]re not susceptible to a continuing violation analysis”
- holding that plaintiffs failure to promote claim and train claims are “discrete instances of alleged discrimination that are not susceptible to a continuing violation analysis.”
- observing that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (“Third Circuit”) has “refus[ed] to adopt a per se rule that every hostile work environment claim constitutes a continuing violation.” (citing West, 45 F.3d at 755 )
- holding that a pattern of derogatory remarks, rude behavior, and other acts of sexual harassment constituted a continuing violation
- holding continuing violation existed after EEOC charge was filed when the harassment intensified and plaintiff “did not realize early on how pervasive or severe the harassment was”

## Opinion text

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
July 16, 1997
The petition for rehearing filed by the appellee, Christine Rush, in the above captioned matter having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the court in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court en banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9490280. Public record. Not legal advice.